I don’t agree with this attitude. I’m wary of branding him a rapist or sexual assaulter without any deeper research, but a dropped case is not the end of things, morally speaking, in just about any serious offense.
Okay, but is it morally right to continually pursue someone who says they are innocent and that it didn’t happen? There wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove anything? I’m not saying the woman did this for money and attention - but what if she did? Otherside of the coin. But you are right, we can’t brand him a rapist and we can’t say she wasn’t raped, the only thing you can say is that the case was dropped and he’s not being charged with rape.
Edit - I don’t like my argument. I don’t want to assume someone made up being raped, but I also don’t have any knowledge on what happened. It’s a shitty opaque situation and I hope that no one was raped and no one is lying - but I know they can’t both be true.
I feel that questioning his appearance because of those accusations is exactly that.
I haven’t questioned his appearance at the games. I’m just trying not to come off as saying that the accusations are definitely false and we should completely ignore anyone who hasn’t been convicted, especially since I didn’t follow the details of the case closely when it happened.
How about don’t brand the dude as shit and just let him live like a regular ass guy? Someone said he did something years ago, and it was withdrawn. Let it go.
Accepting the outcome of the legal system is the basis for a liveable society. If everyone just does their own vigilante justice bullshit in their head, then we can just abolish the entire system of law.
Accepting the outcome of the legal system with regards to the monopoly on force is the basis for a livable society. Personal moral judgements are not suspended by the existence of a legal system; only the violence or coercive action that would accompany in a society without an institution with a monopoly on legitimate force.
Innocent until proven guilty is a mantra used when determining if the state can deploy violence and curtail your liberties, e.g. by physically confining you in a prison. It’s not a universally applicable rule, and isn’t what’s used in civil court, where judgements are made on balance of probabilities (i.e. if they think the evidence suggests it’s more likely that you’ve done something than that you haven’t) and isn’t what’s used in contexts other than the legal system, like when a duty of care exists - generally it wouldn’t be enough to say someone was safe to work with children if they were only probably not a paedophile.
It’s my understanding that there isn’t enough knowledge available to the public to exhonorate Snoop Dogg, and without that, he’s left looking sketchier than he was before. One dropped allegation could be nothing, or the start of a pattern, and that’s different to there being no allegations at all.
A guilty until proven innocent attitude within society is what breeds fertile ground for abusers. If you can make up whatever shit you want about someone and be believed with no evidence, then abusers will simply accuse their victims as a method of violence and control. If you want to attack abusers and not victims, you need a commitment to the truth.
Look at Depp and Heard. Near as I can tell, they’re both abusers, and they’re both dragging each other’s names through the mud because that’s how abusers do violence. They’re using public opinion as a weapon of abuse. That’s why public opinion must be made resistant to weaponisation without due cause.
I don’t agree with this attitude. I’m wary of branding him a rapist or sexual assaulter without any deeper research, but a dropped case is not the end of things, morally speaking, in just about any serious offense.
Okay, but is it morally right to continually pursue someone who says they are innocent and that it didn’t happen? There wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove anything? I’m not saying the woman did this for money and attention - but what if she did? Otherside of the coin. But you are right, we can’t brand him a rapist and we can’t say she wasn’t raped, the only thing you can say is that the case was dropped and he’s not being charged with rape.
Edit - I don’t like my argument. I don’t want to assume someone made up being raped, but I also don’t have any knowledge on what happened. It’s a shitty opaque situation and I hope that no one was raped and no one is lying - but I know they can’t both be true.
I don’t know anything about this case, but if we don’t know the truth, shouldn’t both parties be treated as innocent?
I feel that questioning his appearance because of those accusations is exactly that.
I haven’t questioned his appearance at the games. I’m just trying not to come off as saying that the accusations are definitely false and we should completely ignore anyone who hasn’t been convicted, especially since I didn’t follow the details of the case closely when it happened.
Sorry, I somehow thought the top of this thread was you.
I now got what you were actually saying.
How about don’t brand the dude as shit and just let him live like a regular ass guy? Someone said he did something years ago, and it was withdrawn. Let it go.
Accepting the outcome of the legal system is the basis for a liveable society. If everyone just does their own vigilante justice bullshit in their head, then we can just abolish the entire system of law.
Accepting the outcome of the legal system with regards to the monopoly on force is the basis for a livable society. Personal moral judgements are not suspended by the existence of a legal system; only the violence or coercive action that would accompany in a society without an institution with a monopoly on legitimate force.
Then do the research or stfu.
If you want to speak to morality, then why are you approaching this as guilty until proven innocent?
It’s one thing if there’s a regular pattern of charges and accusations coming and getting dropped (eg Cosby, Weinstein). But this is not that?
Innocent until proven guilty is a mantra used when determining if the state can deploy violence and curtail your liberties, e.g. by physically confining you in a prison. It’s not a universally applicable rule, and isn’t what’s used in civil court, where judgements are made on balance of probabilities (i.e. if they think the evidence suggests it’s more likely that you’ve done something than that you haven’t) and isn’t what’s used in contexts other than the legal system, like when a duty of care exists - generally it wouldn’t be enough to say someone was safe to work with children if they were only probably not a paedophile.
It’s my understanding that there isn’t enough knowledge available to the public to exhonorate Snoop Dogg, and without that, he’s left looking sketchier than he was before. One dropped allegation could be nothing, or the start of a pattern, and that’s different to there being no allegations at all.
A guilty until proven innocent attitude within society is what breeds fertile ground for abusers. If you can make up whatever shit you want about someone and be believed with no evidence, then abusers will simply accuse their victims as a method of violence and control. If you want to attack abusers and not victims, you need a commitment to the truth.
Look at Depp and Heard. Near as I can tell, they’re both abusers, and they’re both dragging each other’s names through the mud because that’s how abusers do violence. They’re using public opinion as a weapon of abuse. That’s why public opinion must be made resistant to weaponisation without due cause.